Why did the IMT's Alan Woods come out so late?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why did the IMT's Alan Woods come out so late as an open cheerleader?

http://www.marxist.com/venezuela-alan-woods-power-of-bourgeoisie-must-be-eradicated.htm


Now that president Chávez has called for a radicalisation of the revolution, it might be useful to consider the opinions of Woods, a Marxist theoretician who confesses being an “unconditional supporter” of the Bolivarian process.

[Q]

Hasn't he been for years?

[vyborg]

Please dont waste your and above all out rime with this useless chit chat. we have all better thing to do

[flobdob]

I'm no fan of Alan Woods or the IMT, but they have been supporting the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela for literally years. It's hardly "coming out" late.

[Edith Lemsipberg]

Revolutionary Socialist is right that Wood's has been hovering around the Ven Rev process for years. It is in this article that the explicit term "unconditional" reads somewhat surprising. Although the sentence could be read two ways "uncondition" for anything - bad. Or "unconditional support of the revoutionary process" - good.
I think the real problem of Woods is revealed later.
He is stuck in the 19th century! He is a lazy or dogmatic about theory - everybody is criticised in terms of the writings of Marx in the 19th century. It's as if the 20th century never existed. A very ugly read is his book 'Reform and Revolution'. A modern post-modernist writer is abused (note abused but not properly criticised) in terms of being like Proudhon. Its clear that Woods does not understand (or perhaps even read) ideas of post-modernism. He is therefore incapable of offering a critic of post-modernism based on Marxist ideas. He ends up as a crude writer throwing about negative adjectives instead of arguments and contructive criticism.

[nideaquinidealli]

In an article published by In Defence of Marxism on Monday, 19 april, we can read a statement about the internal problems inside the IMT.

This is what the IMT said:

"Having purged the organisation of harmful ultra-left and sectarian deviations, they are prepared to play a decisive role within the PSUV and the Venezuelan revolution."

w w w .marxist.com/venezuela-confidence-enthusiasm-launch-lucha-de-clases.htm

So what the IMT guys told us in this forum was not true at all. There have been expulsions and purges in the IMT, at least in Venezuela, and probably in Spain, Mexico and Colombia.

Are these expulsions related with new role of Alan Woods as inconditional supporter of the PSUV leadership?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hasn't he been for years?

In practice, yes. It's just that only now he has made it formal.

Of course, Edith's post is good too.

"Having purged the organisation of harmful ultra-left and sectarian deviations"

Using the words "ultra-left" and "sectarian" a wee bit too much, are we?

[The Grey Blur]

Well he says he is an "unconditional supporter of the process" ie the revolution. Not necessarily Chavez, though even then it's just pathetic to bring your ultra-left pedantry into what is a public interview, not a theoretical publication.

Seriously, there are valid criticisms to be made of all tendencies and parties, this isn't one.

[Q]

"Having purged the organisation of harmful ultra-left and sectarian deviations"

Using the words "ultra-left" and "sectarian" a wee bit too much, are we?

Pretty standard IMT-speak.

[el_chavista]

Those are just the whistles and bells for the relaunching of the New! Venezuelan section of the IMT and its newspaper "Class Strugle" :lol:

[vyborg]

I cannot understand how somebody that thinks to be left wing, not even marxist, can be against a revolution. Either we state that in Venezuela there is not a revolutionary process or we must support it. The problem however is how to do it. Alan explains very well how to do it in the article. No one citicized him on some serious issues. This means no serious discussion can arise from this topic.

[vyborg]

In an article published by In Defence of Marxism on Monday, 19 april, we can read a statement about the internal problems inside the IMT.

This is what the IMT said:

"Having purged the organisation of harmful ultra-left and sectarian deviations, they are prepared to play a decisive role within the PSUV and the Venezuelan revolution."

w w w .marxist.com/venezuela-confidence-enthusiasm-launch-lucha-de-clases.htm

So what the IMT guys told us in this forum was not true at all. There have been expulsions and purges in the IMT, at least in Venezuela, and probably in Spain, Mexico and Colombia.

Are these expulsions related with new role of Alan Woods as inconditional supporter of the PSUV leadership?

No one has been expelled in Spain, Mexico, Venezuela and Colombia. "Purged" must be intended that who was for a sectarian approach simply joined similar guys elsewhere.

The role of Alan is the same now as before. He is a supporter of the revolution, he fights for a marxist PSUV. How about you? Do you support the venezuelan revolution yes or no? Do you support the struggle for a revolutionary PSUV, the only workers party in the country yes or no?

[Q]

Please dont waste your and above all out rime with this useless chit chat. we have all better thing to do


I cannot understand how somebody that thinks to be left wing, not even marxist, can be against a revolution. Either we state that in Venezuela there is not a revolutionary process or we must support it. The problem however is how to do it. Alan explains very well how to do it in the article. No one citicized him on some serious issues. This means no serious discussion can arise from this topic.

Then please stop boring the rest of us with your trollish comments designed to derail or silence the discussion.

[Proletarian Ultra]

The big deal was the splitting-off of the Iranian section. Naturally, the Iranian comrades objected to endorsing Chavez since he's hugged up with Ahmadi-Nejad. Some of the Spanish-speaking sections had their own problems with it and they left in whole or in part.

But yes, the split was all about Chavismo as far as I can tell.

EDIT: Speaking of IMT, can somebody help the American comrades with their f***ing website (http://www.socialistappeal.org/)? It's by far the worst looking of the bunch and doesn't even have the cool little dude waving the big red flag logo, which is basically the #1 thing IMT has going for it.

[vyborg]

Then please stop boring the rest of us with your trollish comments designed to derail or silence the discussion.

I cannot prevent people to slander the IMT but I can at least reply to their senseless comments.

[vyborg]

But yes, the split was all about Chavismo as far as I can tell.

I wish it was that political....unfotunately it was not...anyway, the launch of Luta de clases is a big step forward.

[RadioRaheem84]

Can one be supportive of the Revolution and not be a Chavista? I mean I think we still haven't addressed the fact that many comrades do not believe an actual revolution has happened and attack the revolution from that premise.

The IMT I believe came out in support of the Bolivarian Revolution, not blatant Chavismo.


Since I am relatively new to all the leftist spats, can someone please explain to me why the IMT and Alan Woods are bad? Apparently, every single fucking time I enjoy someone's writing or speech on this or that issue, I find out on this forum I am being led astray because he or she isn't really contributing anything good.

Just what the hell is good according to all of you, so I won't waste memory space on my mp3?

[vyborg]

Can one be supportive of the Revolution and not be a Chavista? I mean I think we still haven't addressed the fact that many comrades do not believe an actual revolution has happened and attack the revolution from that premise.

This is exactly the point: we must support the revolutionry process (that has not still finished) we must stress that you cannot make half a revolution. This is exactly what Alan Woods always points out.


The IMT I believe came out in support of the Bolivarian Revolution, not blatant Chavismo.

That's what inequivocably comes out from IMT material. But why bother yourself with the truth when you can slander Alan Woods without even reading what he writes?


Since I am relatively new to all the leftist spats, can someone please explain to me why the IMT and Alan Woods are bad? Apparently, every single fucking time I enjoy someone's writing or speech on this or that issue, I find out on this forum I am being led astray because he or she isn't really contributing anything good.

Just what the hell is good according to all of you, so I won't waste memory space on my mp3?

The IMT was the first trotskyst organization to note what was going on in Venezuela and to try to intervene there on marxist lines. As Chavez appreciated some IMT materials (as for instance some Alan Woods book) he invited Alan Woods in Venezuela to speak about his ideas. Alan went in Caracas and, even if fraternally, always stressed what Chavez did right and what did wrong.

For many people not accustomed to mass work but only to querelles among a bunch of loony guys, all this means supporting unconditionally Chavez.
Of course this is a lie, but a lie that is repeated many times so that, at least to them, seems realistic

[Q]

I wish it was that political....unfotunately it was not...anyway, the launch of Luta de clases is a big step forward.

How? The pre-split organisation had around 100 members, post-split it has around 25 to 30. How is this a "big step forward"?

[Yehuda Stern]

vyborg, revolutionaries can allow themselves not to support Chavez because he's not a revolutionary and is not leading a revolution.

At any rate, I don't see what's "coming out" about this - the IMT has been giving unconditional support to Chavez (though they claim it is actually for the so-called "revolutionary process") for years now.

[vyborg]

How? The pre-split organisation had around 100 members, post-split it has around 25 to 30. How is this a "big step forward"?

The data in your possession are imprecise for the pre and for the post.
Anyway, it is pointless to count x guys who are doing a wong work. it is a lot better to be less but better as Lenin pointed out some time ago

[Q]

The data in your possession are imprecise for the pre and for the post.
Anyway, it is pointless to count x guys who are doing a wong work. it is a lot better to be less but better as Lenin pointed out some time ago

Lenin was argueing from the position of a party that was generally seen by the working class as their party, a party furthermore that always had a mass and open character from its inception. Lenin clearly didn't have this splinter in mind.

[Pete Process]

[QUOTE=vyborg;1728448] Alan Woods in Venezuela to speak about his ideas. Alan went in Caracas and, even if fraternally, always stressed what Chavez did right and what did wrong.


Interesting word 'always', but a bit of a distortion (or dreamy thinking). If you read the material by Woods, he throws in a bit of mild 'we need this instead' - but directed at the policies. But can only say what a good chap Chavez is - although, of course, mis-guided by his close advisors.
It is not the king, or caesar, but caesar's friends.

[RadioRaheem84]

[QUOTE=vyborg;1728448] Alan Woods in Venezuela to speak about his ideas. Alan went in Caracas and, even if fraternally, always stressed what Chavez did right and what did wrong.


Interesting word 'always', but a bit of a distortion (or dreamy thinking). If you read the material by Woods, he throws in a bit of mild 'we need this instead' - but directed at the policies. But can only say what a good chap Chavez is - although, of course, mis-guided by his close advisors.
It is not the king, or caesar, but caesar's friends.

Yeah, real king? :rolleyes:

[The Grey Blur]

The usual mad sectarians up to their usual tricks. The usual slanders that the IMT refused to correct Chavez on his pro-Ahmenejad line (they ran a two-page spread on with a letter to Chavez decrying this stance in their Venezuelan paper). Whatever you think of the IMT's inner workings the splits etc let's not invent criticisms...

RadioRaheem84, I enjoy Woods' writings and audio a lot as well. It doesn't mean you need to join the IMT. Nor does it mean you need to turn into an opportunist sectarian...in the end we make our own minds up but I'd recommend avoiding revleft if you really want to do that.

Also, I think the Socialist Appeal USA website is cool. It has a great section in its youth for socialism bit FAQ On Socialism...that's a handy guide.

[Proletarian Ultra]

Also, I think the Socialist Appeal USA website is cool. It has a great section in its youth for socialism bit FAQ On Socialism...that's a handy guide.

Naw, the content is fine - it's just ugly. Which is weird b/c almost all the other affiliates look spectacular.

[Die Neue Zeit]

just pathetic to bring your ultra-left pedantry into what is a public interview, not a theoretical publication

So you've joined the International Marxist Tendency lot, I see? :lol:

Seriously, calling someone's post history "ultra-left pedantry" when numerous posts in that history go so far as to call something like the Communist Party of Germany's foundation as ultra-left demonstrates a lack of knowledge to say the least.

[vyborg]

Lenin was argueing from the position of a party that was generally seen by the working class as their party, a party furthermore that always had a mass and open character from its inception. Lenin clearly didn't have this splinter in mind.

Lenin was Lenin...anyway his idea on the topic is right also in other context.
It is pointless to pretend to remain together with people of completely different ideas

[Q]

Lenin was Lenin...anyway his idea on the topic is right also in other context.
It is pointless to pretend to remain together with people of completely different ideas

Could you elaborate what you mean with "completely different ideas"?

[The Grey Blur]

So you've joined the International Marxist Tendency lot, I see? :lol:
Oh dear, your thought-processes really are that linear. My advice Jacob is to join the real world struggle and stop trying to revive Kautsky, he's dead just leave the corpse and go do something useful.

[zimmerwald1915]

Seriously, calling someone's post history "ultra-left pedantry" when numerous posts in that history go so far as to call something like the Communist Party of Germany's foundation as ultra-left demonstrates a lack of knowledge to say the least.
Are your posts ultra-left? Certainly not. Are the pedantic? Perhaps. ;)


Could you elaborate what you mean with "completely different ideas"?
I'd like to hear this as well. I would also like to hear about the history of these "completely different ideas". If the folks involved always had "completely different ideas", what were they doing in the same organization? If not, what changed?

[vyborg]

Could you elaborate what you mean with "completely different ideas"?

A good example is constituted by the guys who consider Chavez e nationalist bourgeois or a socialdemocrat for instance the PSUV an authoritarian party etc etc

[Q]

A good example is constituted by the guys who consider Chavez e nationalist bourgeois or a socialdemocrat for instance the PSUV an authoritarian party etc etc

You're working on a longer post I presume? This isn't saying a lot.

[vyborg]

I think it says the essential. If you consider Chavez a nationalist burgeois (as the Argentinian PO etc) you must fight him as the most dangerous enemy of the workers. I consider this stance a complete idiocy. I would ask whoever has this position in my organization to go and make damage somewhere else.

[Q]

I think it says the essential. If you consider Chavez a nationalist burgeois (as the Argentinian PO etc) you must fight him as the most dangerous enemy of the workers. I consider this stance a complete idiocy. I would ask whoever has this position in my organization to go and make damage somewhere else.

So, how did this position develop over time? Why did it convince about three quarters of the group? Why did it take the initiative of the Spanish section to split away before the differences were deemed large enough to setup a new group?

[vyborg]

So, how did this position develop over time? Why did it convince about three quarters of the group? Why did it take the initiative of the Spanish section to split away before the differences were deemed large enough to setup a new group?

3/4 what? As I noted....your data are highly imprecise. The spanish section position on the workers party (completely abstract due to the fact that they were expelled from the PSOE in the 70s and never restarted this work after it) helped but we were not discussing why but only if it makes sense to have someone stating that the PSUV is your enemy to work in a group trying to conquer the PSUV to marxist policies

[Q]

3/4 what? As I noted....your data are highly imprecise.
I have several current and ex IMT members providing these numbers. You on the other hand offer no serious refutation besides me being "highly imprecise".


The spanish section position on the workers party (completely abstract due to the fact that they were expelled from the PSOE in the 70s and never restarted this work after it) helped but we were not discussing why but only if it makes sense to have someone stating that the PSUV is your enemy to work in a group trying to conquer the PSUV to marxist policies
I think it is rather stupid myself to split over a question of working in this or that party or to be independent. I talk more about that here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/membership-leninist-party-t133268/index.html?p=1722800#post1722800).

Anyway, you still haven't answered these questions: How did this position develop over time? Why did it convince about three quarters (or a majority if you will) of the group? Why did it take the initiative of the Spanish section to split away before the differences were deemed large enough to setup a new group (you only said it "helped" in the split)?

[vyborg]

I have several current and ex IMT members providing these numbers. You on the other hand offer no serious refutation besides me being "highly imprecise".

So you have the ID card of any comrade that joined the IMT venezuelan section during the years? Because any other source is senseless. I could say we are 1000 they are 20 believe me...what's the point...I simply advise you to look at their material and judge for yourself



Anyway, you still haven't answered these questions: How did this position develop over time? Why did it convince about three quarters (or a majority if you will) of the group? Why did it take the initiative of the Spanish section to split away before the differences were deemed large enough to setup a new group (you only said it "helped" in the split)?

Why in a marxist group arises a ultra-left tendency? Well it happens...it happened in the Militant that was a very strong organization, it can happen in a very young and not still experienced section in Venezuela. Marxists have been dealing with the problem since a century ago, so I think it is a lot more fruitfull to read for instance Lenin and Trotsky on the subject that find a special reason why some tens of people decided to become sectarian. They can justify this new stance in a number of way but this is not very interesting.

I think that they were right to go away, anyway, as they have not much in common with marxist methods anymore

[Edith Lemsipberg]

I think that they were right to go away, anyway, as they have not much in common with marxist methods anymore

Please save us from this arrogant nonsense! I know vyborg is often like this, but occasionally it hits you again in the face. Three months ago someone is 'wonderful', then they disagree with you and then they "have not much in common with the marxist method". What kind of distorted mindset is that... "WE" are absolutely correct, the "OTHERS" are absolutely wrong. Please save us from this totalitarian mentality !!!

[vyborg]

I repeat the point: the comrades that left the IMT in Venezuela were right to do it given their perspectivesd and methods now. It is not a question of arrogance it's a question of political transparency

[Palingenisis]

Oh dear, your thought-processes really are that linear. My advice Jacob is to join the real world struggle and stop trying to revive Kautsky, he's dead just leave the corpse and go do something useful.

Its seem you really cant help yourself, can you? Did you learn this approach in the Shinner or the CWI/IMT/Trot school of political discourse or did one just perfect the other?

Kautsky before his treachery contributed a lot (and a lot more than Trotsky ever did to put it mildly) to the development of the workers' movement understanding and action. He was a huge influence on Lenin and has a lot to teach us today. While Im considerably to the left of Jacob his posts are usually insightful, informative and despite a somewhat "quirky" writing style show a grasp of reality. I mean you might aswell say Marx or Luxembourg are just dead so we should abandon them too. There is a lot to be learned from the pre-WWI German workers' movement.

Of course promoting the organizations that you do and slandering progressive and socialist forces as "sectarian" is much more useful than Jacob's posts....To the capitalists and imperialists of this world. Trotsky as opposed to Kautsky's activity over his career was mostly negative...Maybe they needed such a psychopath in order to win the civil war but psychopaths are always dangerous no matter who's side they are on.

Thank you Jacob for your posts.

[vyborg]

Kautsky before his treachery contributed a lot (and a lot more than Trotsky ever did to put it mildly) to the development of the workers' movement understanding and action.

Kautsky is a famous theoretician but if you read his most famous works you will see how weak and poor is his analysis. He merely repeats Marx, he is always deterministic, naturalistic, classical II International...When Kautsky is original he is completely wrong (for instance "ultraimperialism"). As for action he was irrelevant.

Notwithstanding these weakness, Kautsky is a giant compared to the rest of the II International.

Anyway compared to Trotsky is a dward in the development of marxist theory

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now that this thread has drifted, let's see "Schoolmaster" Kautsky's originality and unoriginality, shall we?

1) "Merger of socialism and the worker movement": unoriginal
2) Emphasis on the party as the form of #1: original (since Marx vacillated on the party question)
3) Recognizing that the struggle for socialism is economic and never political: original (hence my polemics against broad economism)
4) "Alternative culture"/"state within a state" instead of mere pamphleteering: unoriginal (he wasn't "active" in this, unlike the likes of Lassalle and Bebel)
5) The Agrarian Question: original (Die Agrefrage)
6) Providing a complete Marxist framework on "the state and revolution": original (Republik und Sozialdemokratie in Frankreich (http://www.revleft.com/vb/need-help-republik-t119601/index.html))
6) Outlining the Marxist theory of imperialism: original (a few years before Hobson wrote his work in fact)
7) The features of a revolutionary period: original (The Road to Power (http://www.revleft.com/vb/luxemburg-vs-kautsky-t105061/index.html))
8) Critiquing the British Labour model of parties "based on the trade unions": original (so much for British Trotskyism in general (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/07/unions.htm))